When Obama's Catholic supportersattacked Catholic League president Bill Donohue for his criticism of their candidate, they did not mention Obama's support for infanticide.

The question will inevitably arise for the distinguished group of Catholics supporting Obama as to how they can defend his preference for infanticide in cases where a child survives a botched abortion. The fury Obama's Catholics vented toward Donohue will only force them to face that question sooner than they may have expected.

It's clear to me how it will be answered: It won't. Obama's Catholics are already attempting to reframe the abortion issue in their favor. They will do everything they can to divert attention from the fact that their candidate is actually the most extreme pro-abortion advocate ever to be nominated by a political party for president of the United States.

The letter to Donohue reveals the arguments Obama's Catholics will use to evade the question of infanticide:

► Vocal anti-abortion Catholics are partisan and divisive. Their letter states that the abortion issue is "one that is too often hijacked by partisan operatives who seek only to divide voters." This is perhaps the strangest argument, coming as it does from Catholics who have publicly endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. They are attempting to win voters for Obama, to convince Catholics to vote for a Democrat. That's a partisan act, dividing voters into those who vote for Obama and those who don't.

So why would they accuse pro-life Catholics of dividing voters? The only logical reason is that they assume Catholic voters should think as they do. Obama's Catholics see their camp as the true home for Catholic voters, and any Catholic who votes Republican is like the prodigal son who has strayed into a foreign land.

► Republicans have done nothing to lower the number of abortions. The letter goes on to ask, "But what have nearly three decades of Republican promises to end abortion accomplished?" Last January the Guttmacher Institute reported that between 2000 and 2005 the number of abortions dropped 9 percent to their lowest level since 1975.

The downward trend in U.S. abortions has provided fodder for the fundraising letters of NARAL and Emily's List. Meanwhile, Obama's Catholics pretend Republicans have had nothing to do with this trend.

► Obama's overall strengths outweigh his support for abortion and infanticide.The letter lists issues from the U.S. bishops' conference document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." These issues include health care, unjust war, racism, discrimination, torture, hunger, and immigration. The letter from Obama's Catholics states, "Across these issues Sen. Obama offers much to the well-formed Catholic conscience." This line contains the essence of what has come to be known as cafeteria Catholicism.

It's as if the Obama Catholics are hoping to serve large enough helpings of health care, immigration, and opposition to the Iraq War to fill the stomachs of Catholic voters so they won't notice that Senator Obama supports the "intrinsic evils" of infanticide and abortion.

► Obama's policies on health care, poverty, and sex education will reduce abortion. "Senator Obama has reached out to Americans on both sides of this issue and embraces practical proposals designed to reduce the number of abortions in this country." I wonder how many pro-lifers feel that Obama has reached out to them. Aside from that, why didn't the Obama Catholics make any note of Obama's 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, promising that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?

How can Obama's Catholics expect us to take their arguments seriously when their candidate goes out of his way to make a promise like that? They say that Obama "recognizes abortion represents a profound moral challenge," but the only challenge he appears to recognize is doing away with any federal or state restrictions on a woman's "freedom of choice."

What's going on here is obvious: Obama's policy agenda was set without any concern for lowering the number of abortions. His priorities were made clear when he spoke to NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

► Moral equivalence exists between Republicans and Democrats on Catholic social teaching. Of all the arguments posed by Obama's Catholics, this is the most insidious. They write,

Like many other Americans, we have watched as many candidates brought to office on a so-called pro-life platform insisted on policies that have left the lives of millions more of our brothers and sisters at risk from war, uncontrolled pollution, deeper poverty, and growing economic equality.

There are two claims embedded in this rhetoric: First, Republican pro-life candidates are not truly pro-life across the board. Somehow, a member of Congress who, for example, promised to sign pro-life legislation-- and did -- is not really pro-life if he supported the Iraq War. We will be hearing much more of this in the months ahead.

In an attempt to create the impression of moral equivalence between the parties, a second claim is made that a huge imbalance exists between the single concern of a pro-life Republican and the multitude of concerns of a pro-abortion Democrat. Obama's Catholics talk as if a Republican never had a thought about healthcare, immigration, poverty, taxation, and so on.

There will be a moment in the 2008 campaign when Senator Obama will be asked about infanticide in front of a national television audience, but there is no answer he can give that will satisfy Catholic voters with a well-formed conscience. Obama's Catholics will not be able to respond either, because there is no answer -- and they know it.

Pope Benedict has declared that not all moral questions are of equal equivalence, and that the right to life is paramount. This fig leaf will not work. Not when the Archbishop of Kansas City, KS just told Gov. Sebelius (who is an Obama supporter and on his “Catholic list”) not to try to receive Communion again in his Archdiocese or he would be forced to take “substantive measures.” Those measures are “juridical.”

Whistleblower Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse, described the practice of killing babies in what is now known as live-birth abortion. Illinois tried to stop the practice. But in 2002, as state legislator there, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies who were accidentally born alive during attempts to abort them.

Apparently Obama thought so...

7
posted on 05/15/2008 9:48:49 AM PDT
by mewzilla
(In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)

On a recent program discussing the catholic vote, Father Frank Pavone, while not providing the candidate's actual name, noted that one of the candidates favored infanticide. In fact, one of this candidate's supporters wants to see the law changed in order to postpone issuance of birth certificates until a child is 2 to 3 years old.

9
posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:08 AM PDT
by NYer
(Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)

Why would you think it doesn't? Babies of 20-24 weeks' gestation are aborted every day -- those are completely formed children, you understand, that are essentially delivered. Naturally some of them are going to survive until they emerge from the birth canal.

They took that little baby that was making little sounds and moving and kicking, and set it on that table in a cold, stainless steel bowl. Every time I would look over while we were repairing the incision in uterus and finishing the Caesarean, I would see that little person moving in that bowl. And it kicked and moved less and less, of course, as time went on. I can remember going over and looking at the baby when we were done with the surgery and the baby was still alive. You could see the chest was moving and the heart was beating, and the baby would try to take a little breath, and it really hurt inside, and it began to educate me as to what abortion really was."

quoted in "Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet"

10
posted on 05/15/2008 10:28:33 AM PDT
by workerbee
(Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them.)

From "Rachel Weeping" "The doctors would remove the fetus while performing hysterectomies and then lay it on the table., where it would squirm until it died. ..They all had perfect forms and shapes. I couldn't take it. No nurse could."

--Joyce Craig, director of a Brooklyn clinic of Planned Parenthood. who assisted in abortion for two months, then quit.

11
posted on 05/15/2008 10:32:44 AM PDT
by workerbee
(Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them.)

Thank you for posting those quotes. It baffles me how anyone can deny a child the right to life. During a recent discussion on the upcoming election, someone complained about the senseless loss of young American men in Iraq, thus justifying why they could not vote for McCain. I acknowledged the tragic loss of those lives but commended the young men who chose to serve, vs the thousands of babies aborted each day who were not given any choice. That is truly senseless.

12
posted on 05/15/2008 10:46:36 AM PDT
by NYer
(Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)

The abortionist is attempting to kill inside the mother’s womb a baby who has been developing for 5 to 8 months.

The abortionist has to kill the baby inside the mom - if the baby slips out alive and then they kill him, it is murder.

They abortionist has to prepare the cervix and the birth canal to accept large instruments going in and out and to allow the baby parts - especially the skull - to slip out without destroying the woman’s organs, so he uses medical techniques to create the actual condition of the woman’s private area to the looser state that it is in when a baby is delivered.

So, as the abortionist begins th process of ripping the baby apart, he shoves his instruments inside the woman, and the baby slips out.

Oh shit - a live baby!
But this woman has a right to a dead baby!

Lets just leave him alone on the table in th corner until he’s dead - maybe we might put a towel over him to muffle the noise and hasten the process.

16
posted on 05/15/2008 11:38:40 AM PDT
by Notwithstanding
("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)

To try and compare the deaths of our soldiers at war to that of babies in the womb is simply idiotic. Besides the average person knows how many soldiers have died because the msm have been telling them every hour on the hour since the war began. If the msm were to begin telling the people of this country that we have 50 million dead children through abortion then maybe hearts would soften. But as of now people have hardened their hearts to the deaths of those children and the possibility of happiness they could have given to the world.

23
posted on 06/24/2008 10:53:23 AM PDT
by red irish
(Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)

Abortion is a “fail safe” to continue and maintain a culture of complete and utter sexual license. Society wants absolutely no restriction to its sexual apetite. Thank the Sexual Revolution and the fall of a moral order based on the Common Good grounded in Natural Law.

Let’s see... we’re judging the character of a man who would be commander in chief and will appoint supreme court justices.

This man supports killing/letting die infants who are accidentally born during an abortion, because doing otherwise would put an undue burden on the woman.

This is a revealing aspect of his character.

Even if this situation NEVER occurred, even if it’s hypothetical, his position reveals his character. Do you want someone that would take this position on this “hypothetical” issue to be in the highest office of the land?

25
posted on 06/24/2008 1:07:37 PM PDT
by MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.